Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.817

onset_age

250

36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)

0.730

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.430, 0.174

0.406

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.014

0.135

-0.279, 0.251

0.918

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.307

0.196

-0.077, 0.690

0.118

Pseudo R square

0.007

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.270

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.382

-0.829, 0.669

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.265

0.261

-0.776, 0.246

0.311

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

0.379

0.272, 1.76

0.008

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.504

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.713

-1.06, 1.73

0.638

time_point

1st

2nd

0.578

0.420

-0.246, 1.40

0.171

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.30

0.611

0.097, 2.49

0.035

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.186

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.263

-0.483, 0.547

0.903

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.003

0.181

-0.358, 0.352

0.988

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.289

0.263

-0.226, 0.805

0.273

Pseudo R square

0.004

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.291

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.412

-0.463, 1.15

0.404

time_point

1st

2nd

0.361

0.267

-0.163, 0.885

0.178

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.433

0.388

-0.328, 1.19

0.266

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.264

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.373

-0.546, 0.914

0.622

time_point

1st

2nd

0.309

0.219

-0.121, 0.739

0.160

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.356

0.319

-0.269, 0.980

0.266

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.215

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.305

-0.989, 0.205

0.199

time_point

1st

2nd

0.019

0.219

-0.411, 0.449

0.933

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.811

0.318

0.187, 1.43

0.012

Pseudo R square

0.014

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.877

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.240

-3.72, 1.14

0.300

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.45

0.698

-2.82, -0.083

0.039

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.081

1.015

-1.91, 2.07

0.937

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.409

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.579

-1.14, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.312

0.358

-0.389, 1.01

0.384

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.222

0.520

-0.797, 1.24

0.670

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.515

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.729

-0.588, 2.27

0.250

time_point

1st

2nd

0.260

0.448

-0.619, 1.14

0.563

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.314

0.652

-0.963, 1.59

0.630

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.643

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.910

-0.415, 3.15

0.134

time_point

1st

2nd

1.13

0.511

0.124, 2.13

0.029

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.049

0.744

-1.51, 1.41

0.947

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.334

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.473

-0.575, 1.28

0.457

time_point

1st

2nd

0.311

0.273

-0.225, 0.846

0.257

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.037

0.397

-0.741, 0.816

0.925

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.543

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.768

-1.50, 1.50

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.826

0.455

-0.065, 1.72

0.071

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.235

0.661

-1.06, 1.53

0.722

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.629

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.890

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

1.04

0.501

0.056, 2.02

0.040

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.137

0.728

-1.56, 1.29

0.851

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.391

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.552

-0.323, 1.84

0.170

time_point

1st

2nd

0.804

0.357

0.105, 1.50

0.025

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.470

0.518

-0.546, 1.49

0.366

Pseudo R square

0.025

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.251

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.355

0.048, 1.44

0.037

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.129

0.222

-0.563, 0.306

0.562

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.468

0.322

-0.163, 1.10

0.148

Pseudo R square

0.029

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.285

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.404

-0.399, 1.18

0.332

time_point

1st

2nd

0.360

0.245

-0.121, 0.841

0.144

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.325

0.357

-0.374, 1.02

0.363

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.295

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.417

-0.121, 1.51

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.268

0.236

-0.194, 0.730

0.257

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.293

0.343

-0.379, 0.965

0.393

Pseudo R square

0.019

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.539

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.763

-0.407, 2.58

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.640

0.414

-0.173, 1.45

0.124

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.605

0.603

-0.576, 1.79

0.317

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.819

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.158

-3.49, 1.05

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.840

0.657

-2.13, 0.448

0.203

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.65

0.955

-3.52, 0.227

0.087

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.447

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.632

-0.231, 2.25

0.112

time_point

1st

2nd

0.362

0.345

-0.313, 1.04

0.295

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.541

0.501

-0.442, 1.52

0.282

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.364

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.515

-0.001, 2.02

0.051

time_point

1st

2nd

0.492

0.308

-0.112, 1.10

0.112

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.355

0.448

-0.523, 1.23

0.429

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.772

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.092

-0.125, 4.16

0.066

time_point

1st

2nd

0.856

0.594

-0.309, 2.02

0.151

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.892

0.864

-0.802, 2.59

0.303

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.139

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.197

-0.457, 0.313

0.714

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.191

0.159

-0.502, 0.120

0.231

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.208

0.230

-0.243, 0.659

0.367

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.312

13.7, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.441

-0.144, 1.58

0.103

time_point

1st

2nd

0.595

0.326

-0.044, 1.23

0.069

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.628

0.473

-1.55, 0.298

0.185

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.378

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.534

-0.582, 1.51

0.385

time_point

1st

2nd

0.566

0.351

-0.122, 1.25

0.108

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.323

0.510

-0.676, 1.32

0.527

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.619

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.875

-0.531, 2.90

0.177

time_point

1st

2nd

1.17

0.590

0.008, 2.32

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.310

0.857

-1.99, 1.37

0.718

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.404

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.572

-0.593, 1.65

0.357

time_point

1st

2nd

0.707

0.335

0.050, 1.36

0.036

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.094

0.487

-0.860, 1.05

0.846

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.225

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.318

-0.631, 0.615

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.178

0.248

-0.308, 0.664

0.474

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.589

0.360

-0.116, 1.29

0.103

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.275

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.389

-0.851, 0.675

0.821

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.488

0.283

-1.04, 0.066

0.086

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.573

0.410

-1.38, 0.231

0.164

Pseudo R square

0.019

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.459

-0.676, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.419

0.269

-0.947, 0.108

0.121

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.734

0.391

-1.50, 0.033

0.062

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.471

-1.00, 0.842

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.590

0.276

-1.13, -0.048

0.034

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.230

0.401

-1.02, 0.557

0.567

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.334

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.472

-0.518, 1.33

0.388

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.397

0.273

-0.931, 0.138

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.628

0.397

-1.41, 0.149

0.115

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.935

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.322

-2.04, 3.14

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.40

0.696

-2.77, -0.038

0.045

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.52

1.012

-3.51, 0.463

0.135

Pseudo R square

0.011

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(422) = 29.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(422) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25], t(422) = -0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.69], t(422) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(422) = 66.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(422) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.25], t(422) = -1.02, p = 0.310; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.27, 1.76], t(422) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(422) = 58.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(422) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.40], t(422) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [0.10, 2.49], t(422) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.02, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(422) = 62.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55], t(422) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.62e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.35], t(422) = -0.01, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -1.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.80], t(422) = 1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(422) = 58.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(422) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.89], t(422) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.19], t(422) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(422) = 49.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(422) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.74], t(422) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.98], t(422) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(422) = 46.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.21], t(422) = -1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.45], t(422) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 7.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.19, 1.43], t(422) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.08, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(422) = 35.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(422) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-2.82, -0.08], t(422) = -2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, -8.52e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.07], t(422) = 0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = 8.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(422) = 53.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(422) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.01], t(422) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.24], t(422) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(422) = 47.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(422) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.14], t(422) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.59], t(422) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.93], t(422) = 30.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.15], t(422) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [0.12, 2.13], t(422) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.41], t(422) = -0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = -6.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(422) = 31.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(422) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.85], t(422) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.82], t(422) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(422) = 27.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.64e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(422) = -3.44e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.08e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.72], t(422) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.53], t(422) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(422) = 34.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(422) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.06, 2.02], t(422) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [8.14e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.29], t(422) = -0.19, p = 0.851; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(422) = 41.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(422) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.11, 1.50], t(422) = 2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.49], t(422) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(422) = 52.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(422) = 2.09, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.31], t(422) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.10], t(422) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(422) = 58.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(422) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.84], t(422) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.02], t(422) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(422) = 42.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(422) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.73], t(422) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.96], t(422) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(422) = 54.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(422) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.45], t(422) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.79], t(422) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(422) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(422) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.45], t(422) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.52, 0.23], t(422) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(422) = 30.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(422) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.04], t(422) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.52], t(422) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(422) = 42.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-9.57e-04, 2.02], t(422) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.33e-04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.10], t(422) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.23], t(422) = 0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.65, 30.68], t(422) = 37.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.16], t(422) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.02], t(422) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.59], t(422) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(422) = 92.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.31], t(422) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.12], t(422) = -1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.66], t(422) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(422) = 46.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(422) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.23], t(422) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.30], t(422) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(422) = 34.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(422) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.25], t(422) = 1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.32], t(422) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(422) = 44.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(422) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [8.19e-03, 2.32], t(422) = 1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [1.18e-03, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.37], t(422) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(422) = 46.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(422) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.05, 1.36], t(422) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.01, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.05], t(422) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(422) = 63.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.62], t(422) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.18e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66], t(422) = 0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.29], t(422) = 1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(422) = 42.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(422) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.07], t(422) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.23], t(422) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(422) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(422) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.11], t(422) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.03], t(422) = -1.88, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.41, 9.04e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(422) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(422) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.05], t(422) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.56], t(422) = -0.57, p = 0.567; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(422) = 26.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(422) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.14], t(422) = -1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.15], t(422) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(422) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(422) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-2.77, -0.04], t(422) = -2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, -3.59e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.51, 0.46], t(422) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,362.906

1,375.083

-678.453

1,356.906

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,364.612

1,388.967

-676.306

1,352.612

4.294

3

0.231

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,080.873

2,093.051

-1,037.437

2,074.873

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,077.857

2,102.212

-1,032.928

2,065.857

9.017

3

0.029

ras_confidence

null

3

2,581.886

2,594.064

-1,287.943

2,575.886

ras_confidence

random

6

2,567.648

2,592.003

-1,277.824

2,555.648

20.238

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,756.076

1,768.254

-875.038

1,750.076

ras_willingness

random

6

1,759.493

1,783.848

-873.746

1,747.493

2.584

3

0.460

ras_goal

null

3

2,132.507

2,144.685

-1,063.254

2,126.507

ras_goal

random

6

2,127.299

2,151.654

-1,057.649

2,115.299

11.208

3

0.011

ras_reliance

null

3

2,016.141

2,028.318

-1,005.070

2,010.141

ras_reliance

random

6

2,011.349

2,035.703

-999.674

1,999.349

10.792

3

0.013

ras_domination

null

3

1,905.819

1,917.996

-949.909

1,899.819

ras_domination

random

6

1,898.968

1,923.323

-943.484

1,886.968

12.851

3

0.005

symptom

null

3

3,029.256

3,041.433

-1,511.628

3,023.256

symptom

random

6

3,026.493

3,050.848

-1,507.246

3,014.493

8.763

3

0.033

slof_work

null

3

2,400.192

2,412.369

-1,197.096

2,394.192

slof_work

random

6

2,403.399

2,427.754

-1,195.699

2,391.399

2.793

3

0.425

slof_relationship

null

3

2,596.832

2,609.009

-1,295.416

2,590.832

slof_relationship

random

6

2,599.132

2,623.487

-1,293.566

2,587.132

3.699

3

0.296

satisfaction

null

3

2,766.134

2,778.311

-1,380.067

2,760.134

satisfaction

random

6

2,761.202

2,785.557

-1,374.601

2,749.202

10.932

3

0.012

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,206.738

2,218.916

-1,100.369

2,200.738

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,209.379

2,233.734

-1,098.689

2,197.379

3.360

3

0.339

mhc_social

null

3

2,633.990

2,646.168

-1,313.995

2,627.990

mhc_social

random

6

2,631.982

2,656.337

-1,309.991

2,619.982

8.008

3

0.046

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,743.593

2,755.770

-1,368.797

2,737.593

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,742.447

2,766.801

-1,365.223

2,730.447

7.146

3

0.067

resilisnce

null

3

2,389.815

2,401.992

-1,191.907

2,383.815

resilisnce

random

6

2,376.745

2,401.100

-1,182.373

2,364.745

19.070

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,992.405

2,004.583

-993.203

1,986.405

social_provision

random

6

1,988.545

2,012.900

-988.273

1,976.545

9.860

3

0.020

els_value_living

null

3

2,094.511

2,106.688

-1,044.255

2,088.511

els_value_living

random

6

2,089.793

2,114.147

-1,038.896

2,077.793

10.718

3

0.013

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,099.016

2,111.193

-1,046.508

2,093.016

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,094.758

2,119.113

-1,041.379

2,082.758

10.257

3

0.017

els

null

3

2,606.768

2,618.945

-1,300.384

2,600.768

els

random

6

2,599.449

2,623.804

-1,293.724

2,587.449

13.319

3

0.004

social_connect

null

3

2,981.489

2,993.667

-1,487.745

2,975.489

social_connect

random

6

2,970.771

2,995.125

-1,479.385

2,958.771

16.719

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

2,444.922

2,457.100

-1,219.461

2,438.922

shs_agency

random

6

2,439.956

2,464.311

-1,213.978

2,427.956

10.966

3

0.012

shs_pathway

null

3

2,301.478

2,313.655

-1,147.739

2,295.478

shs_pathway

random

6

2,293.070

2,317.425

-1,140.535

2,281.070

14.407

3

0.002

shs

null

3

2,915.529

2,927.707

-1,454.765

2,909.529

shs

random

6

2,907.079

2,931.434

-1,447.540

2,895.079

14.450

3

0.002

esteem

null

3

1,549.800

1,561.977

-771.900

1,543.800

esteem

random

6

1,554.332

1,578.687

-771.166

1,542.332

1.468

3

0.690

mlq_search

null

3

2,221.034

2,233.212

-1,107.517

2,215.034

mlq_search

random

6

2,222.311

2,246.666

-1,105.156

2,210.311

4.723

3

0.193

mlq_presence

null

3

2,356.648

2,368.825

-1,175.324

2,350.648

mlq_presence

random

6

2,353.145

2,377.500

-1,170.572

2,341.145

9.503

3

0.023

mlq

null

3

2,784.831

2,797.008

-1,389.415

2,778.831

mlq

random

6

2,783.480

2,807.834

-1,385.740

2,771.480

7.351

3

0.062

empower

null

3

2,381.112

2,393.290

-1,187.556

2,375.112

empower

random

6

2,376.696

2,401.051

-1,182.348

2,364.696

10.416

3

0.015

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,960.874

1,973.051

-977.437

1,954.874

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,957.309

1,981.663

-972.654

1,945.309

9.565

3

0.023

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,120.904

2,133.081

-1,057.452

2,114.904

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,110.952

2,135.306

-1,049.476

2,098.952

15.952

3

0.001

sss_affective

null

3

2,201.175

2,213.352

-1,097.587

2,195.175

sss_affective

random

6

2,188.704

2,213.059

-1,088.352

2,176.704

18.471

3

0.000

sss_behavior

null

3

2,216.687

2,228.865

-1,105.344

2,210.687

sss_behavior

random

6

2,210.263

2,234.618

-1,099.131

2,198.263

12.425

3

0.006

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,217.348

2,229.525

-1,105.674

2,211.348

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,208.576

2,232.930

-1,098.288

2,196.576

14.772

3

0.002

sss

null

3

3,073.213

3,085.390

-1,533.606

3,067.213

sss

random

6

3,059.871

3,084.226

-1,523.936

3,047.871

19.341

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.406

0.133

recovery_stage_a

2nd

94

3.19 ± 1.20

0.014

84

3.36 ± 1.19

-0.303

0.320

-0.185

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.02

125

17.80 ± 3.02

0.834

0.044

recovery_stage_b

2nd

94

17.62 ± 2.87

0.145

84

18.55 ± 2.83

-0.410

0.029

-0.511

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.64

125

30.02 ± 5.64

0.638

-0.115

ras_confidence

2nd

94

30.27 ± 5.25

-0.197

84

31.90 ± 5.14

-0.639

0.037

-0.556

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.08

125

11.66 ± 2.08

0.903

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

94

11.62 ± 1.97

0.002

84

11.94 ± 1.94

-0.225

0.275

-0.253

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.26

125

17.53 ± 3.26

0.404

-0.184

ras_goal

2nd

94

17.55 ± 3.07

-0.193

84

18.32 ± 3.02

-0.425

0.090

-0.415

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.95

125

13.33 ± 2.95

0.622

-0.120

ras_reliance

2nd

94

13.45 ± 2.74

-0.202

84

13.99 ± 2.68

-0.435

0.186

-0.353

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.41

125

9.56 ± 2.41

0.199

0.254

ras_domination

2nd

94

9.97 ± 2.30

-0.012

84

10.39 ± 2.27

-0.537

0.224

-0.271

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.80

125

30.21 ± 9.80

0.300

0.265

symptom

2nd

94

30.05 ± 9.09

0.298

84

28.84 ± 8.86

0.282

0.371

0.248

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.58

125

22.06 ± 4.58

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

94

22.38 ± 4.29

-0.125

84

22.59 ± 4.20

-0.214

0.738

-0.085

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.76

125

25.34 ± 5.76

0.250

-0.268

slof_relationship

2nd

94

24.76 ± 5.40

-0.083

84

25.92 ± 5.28

-0.183

0.151

-0.369

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.19

125

21.03 ± 7.19

0.134

-0.384

satisfaction

2nd

94

20.79 ± 6.67

-0.316

84

22.11 ± 6.50

-0.303

0.183

-0.370

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.74

125

11.00 ± 3.74

0.457

-0.185

mhc_emotional

2nd

94

10.96 ± 3.47

-0.163

84

11.35 ± 3.39

-0.183

0.450

-0.205

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.07

125

15.13 ± 6.07

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

94

15.95 ± 5.66

-0.260

84

16.19 ± 5.53

-0.335

0.779

-0.074

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.03

125

21.87 ± 7.03

0.719

-0.092

mhc_psychological

2nd

94

22.59 ± 6.52

-0.298

84

22.77 ± 6.36

-0.258

0.850

-0.053

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.37

125

16.94 ± 4.37

0.170

-0.304

resilisnce

2nd

94

16.98 ± 4.12

-0.322

84

18.21 ± 4.04

-0.510

0.045

-0.493

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.81

125

13.91 ± 2.81

0.037

-0.480

social_provision

2nd

94

13.04 ± 2.64

0.083

84

14.25 ± 2.58

-0.219

0.002

-0.783

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.332

-0.229

els_value_living

2nd

94

17.12 ± 2.98

-0.210

84

17.84 ± 2.92

-0.400

0.106

-0.419

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.30

125

13.10 ± 3.30

0.096

-0.424

els_life_fulfill

2nd

94

12.68 ± 3.06

-0.163

84

13.67 ± 2.98

-0.342

0.030

-0.603

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.03

125

30.26 ± 6.03

0.155

-0.378

els

2nd

94

29.81 ± 5.57

-0.222

84

31.50 ± 5.42

-0.432

0.041

-0.587

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.16

125

26.66 ± 9.16

0.295

0.266

social_connect

2nd

94

27.04 ± 8.50

0.183

84

24.18 ± 8.29

0.543

0.024

0.625

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 5.00

125

14.85 ± 5.00

0.112

-0.420

shs_agency

2nd

94

14.20 ± 4.62

-0.151

84

15.75 ± 4.50

-0.377

0.024

-0.646

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.07

125

16.34 ± 4.07

0.051

-0.469

shs_pathway

2nd

94

15.82 ± 3.80

-0.229

84

17.18 ± 3.72

-0.394

0.016

-0.634

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.64

125

31.18 ± 8.64

0.066

-0.488

shs

2nd

94

30.02 ± 7.98

-0.207

84

32.93 ± 7.76

-0.423

0.014

-0.704

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.55

125

12.73 ± 1.55

0.714

0.064

esteem

2nd

94

12.61 ± 1.51

0.169

84

12.75 ± 1.50

-0.015

0.548

-0.121

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.48

125

15.08 ± 3.48

0.103

-0.314

mlq_search

2nd

94

14.95 ± 3.35

-0.259

84

15.05 ± 3.31

0.015

0.854

-0.040

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.22

125

13.62 ± 4.22

0.385

-0.189

mlq_presence

2nd

94

13.72 ± 3.99

-0.230

84

14.51 ± 3.92

-0.362

0.185

-0.320

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.92

125

28.70 ± 6.92

0.177

-0.286

mlq

2nd

94

28.68 ± 6.56

-0.281

84

29.55 ± 6.45

-0.206

0.371

-0.211

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.52

125

19.38 ± 4.52

0.357

-0.226

empower

2nd

94

19.55 ± 4.21

-0.303

84

20.18 ± 4.11

-0.343

0.320

-0.267

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.51

125

14.35 ± 2.51

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

94

14.54 ± 2.43

-0.101

84

15.12 ± 2.41

-0.437

0.111

-0.331

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.08

125

11.70 ± 3.08

0.821

0.044

ismi_discrimation

2nd

94

11.30 ± 2.95

0.245

84

10.64 ± 2.91

0.533

0.133

0.332

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.119

sss_affective

2nd

94

9.98 ± 3.38

0.224

84

9.47 ± 3.30

0.615

0.310

0.272

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.042

sss_behavior

2nd

94

9.59 ± 3.47

0.306

84

9.28 ± 3.39

0.426

0.547

0.161

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.73

125

9.12 ± 3.73

0.388

-0.215

sss_cognitive

2nd

94

8.32 ± 3.47

0.209

84

8.09 ± 3.39

0.539

0.669

0.116

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.45

125

29.84 ± 10.45

0.677

-0.114

sss

2nd

94

27.89 ± 9.62

0.290

84

26.92 ± 9.35

0.604

0.496

0.200

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(381.34) = -0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)

2st

t(417.28) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.53)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(322.95) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(390.44) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.77)

ras_confidence

1st

t(301.55) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(368.31) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.10 to 3.16)

ras_willingness

1st

t(325.09) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)

2st

t(392.14) = 1.09, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.90)

ras_goal

1st

t(314.85) = 0.83, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)

2st

t(383.23) = 1.70, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.68)

ras_reliance

1st

t(301.30) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(367.99) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.34)

ras_domination

1st

t(333.14) = -1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(397.87) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.09)

symptom

1st

t(296.25) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(361.09) = -0.90, p = 0.371, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.85 to 1.44)

slof_work

1st

t(307.63) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(375.67) = 0.34, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.47)

slof_relationship

1st

t(307.10) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(375.05) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.73)

satisfaction

1st

t(296.07) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)

2st

t(360.82) = 1.33, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.26)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(299.17) = 0.74, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(365.16) = 0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.40)

mhc_social

1st

t(302.14) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(369.06) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.89)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(296.21) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(361.02) = 0.19, p = 0.850, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.08)

resilisnce

1st

t(314.03) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)

2st

t(382.44) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.43)

social_provision

1st

t(309.05) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(377.24) = 3.10, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.44 to 1.98)

els_value_living

1st

t(305.48) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(373.16) = 1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.59)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(296.71) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(361.74) = 2.18, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.88)

els

1st

t(292.47) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(355.42) = 2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.07 to 3.31)

social_connect

1st

t(297.05) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)

2st

t(362.23) = -2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.34 to -0.39)

shs_agency

1st

t(292.82) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)

2st

t(355.97) = 2.26, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.89)

shs_pathway

1st

t(303.36) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)

2st

t(370.60) = 2.42, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.47)

shs

1st

t(292.61) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.17)

2st

t(355.63) = 2.46, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.59 to 5.23)

esteem

1st

t(358.83) = -0.37, p = 0.714, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.31)

2st

t(410.68) = 0.60, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.58)

mlq_search

1st

t(338.44) = 1.63, p = 0.103, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.59)

2st

t(401.14) = 0.18, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.07)

mlq_presence

1st

t(316.92) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(385.20) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.95)

mlq

1st

t(321.10) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.91)

2st

t(388.91) = 0.89, p = 0.371, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.79)

empower

1st

t(300.73) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(367.24) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.85)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(350.60) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.62)

2st

t(407.33) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(334.98) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(399.05) = -1.50, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.20)

sss_affective

1st

t(300.91) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(367.47) = -1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.48)

sss_behavior

1st

t(300.98) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(367.56) = -0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.70)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(299.16) = 0.86, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(365.15) = -0.43, p = 0.669, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.79)

sss

1st

t(289.47) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(350.60) = -0.68, p = 0.496, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.77 to 1.83)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(217.65) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.57)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(199.48) = 2.73, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.29)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(193.05) = 4.22, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (1.00 to 2.75)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(200.12) = 1.50, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.66)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(197.06) = 2.82, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.35)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(192.98) = 2.87, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(202.53) = 3.59, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.28)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(191.44) = -1.86, p = 0.130, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.82 to 0.08)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(194.89) = 1.41, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.28)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(194.73) = 1.21, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.51)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(191.38) = 1.99, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(192.33) = 1.21, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.92)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(193.23) = 2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.01)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(191.43) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(196.81) = 3.39, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.53 to 2.02)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(195.31) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.80)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(194.24) = 2.65, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.20)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(191.58) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.05)

els

1st vs 2st

t(190.28) = 2.84, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.11)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(191.68) = -3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-3.85 to -1.12)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(190.39) = 2.48, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.62)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(193.60) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.49)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(190.33) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.99)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(210.34) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.35)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(204.12) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.64)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(197.68) = 2.40, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.62)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(198.93) = 1.37, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.08)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(192.80) = 2.26, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.50)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(207.80) = 2.94, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.28)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(203.08) = -3.57, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.65 to -0.47)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(192.86) = -4.06, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.71 to -0.59)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(192.88) = -2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.24)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(192.33) = -3.56, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.59 to -0.46)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(189.36) = -3.97, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.37 to -1.47)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(206.43) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.25)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(193.11) = -1.02, p = 0.622, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.25)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(188.43) = 1.37, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(193.58) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.35)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(191.35) = 1.35, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.89)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(188.38) = 1.41, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.74)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(195.34) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.45)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(187.26) = -2.08, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.83 to -0.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(189.77) = 0.87, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(189.65) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.14)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(187.22) = 2.20, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(187.91) = 1.14, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.85)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(188.56) = 1.82, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.72)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(187.25) = 2.07, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.03)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(191.17) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.51)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(190.08) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(189.30) = 1.47, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.84)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(187.36) = 1.14, p = 0.515, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.73)

els

1st vs 2st

t(186.42) = 1.54, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.46)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(187.44) = -1.28, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.14 to 0.46)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(186.50) = 1.05, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.04)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(188.83) = 1.60, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.10)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(186.45) = 1.44, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.03)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(201.05) = -1.20, p = 0.463, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.12)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(196.50) = 1.82, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.24)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(191.80) = 1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.26)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(192.71) = 1.97, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.33)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(188.25) = 2.11, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.37)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(199.19) = 0.72, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.67)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(195.74) = -1.73, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.07)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(188.29) = -1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.11)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(188.31) = -2.13, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.13 to -0.04)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(187.91) = -1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(185.75) = -2.01, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.77 to -0.03)

Plot

Clinical significance